Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 24 Comments
This post is in: Outrage
Eugene Volokh links to this story about this grotesque public execution in Iran and states:
I particularly like the involvement of the victims’ relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he’d killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing
Comments are closed.
Wrong, with vengeance
My friend Eugene Volokh writes sensibly about nearly every other topic in the world, but yesterday revealed an inexplicable blind spot (Mar. 16) on some basic issues of crime and punishment. John Cole, Jonathan Wilde,…
Vengeance as Justice
It’s noteworthy that the two conservative big-wigs who have recently come out in favor of cruel vengeance as just punishment (Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds) are not known for being a part of the religious right. I say this…
Flagwaver
John,
I completely agree with you, but there is another dynamic at work, here, that we can’t ignore. In the U.S., in my adult lifetime (say the past 30+ years), we have seen the death penalty abolished and reinstated, applied to fewer and fewer crimes, and applied in a haphazard fashion. If a convicted murder IS executed, it is usually after literally DOZENS of years of (taxpayer financed) appeals, most of which are completely baseless, and taken for no purpose OTHER THAN delaying the execution.
If my child were kidnapped, molested, tortured and killed, I could (with great difficulty – in truth, Ellie Nessler is a hero, IMHO) control myself from meting out vigilante justice IF I believed there was a reasonable chance that society would do the job competently and promptly. Unfortunately, that AIN’T the case in the U.S. . . . and we’re far better than the EUnuchs.
My proposal? Impose the death penalty (at the option of the judge and jury) for any of the following crimes where “special circumstances” are found: murder, rape, kidnapping, child molestation. After someone is convicted and sentenced, a MANDATORY appeal, at taxpayer expense, where an appeals court reviews the trial and sentencing, and then confirms or overturns either the conviction or the sentence. If the conviction and sentence are confirmed, the execution takes place within 60 days after confirmation.
You give me that, and I agree that your view should prevail. But can I tell you that, if my three year old daughter were kidnapped, tortured, raped, molested and killed, I would be willing to allow “society’s justice” if that took 15 years, and resulted in the animal who committed the atrocity enjoying 15 more years of like at MY expense (and then maybe getting “life without parole” because some bleeding heart judge doesn’t like the death penalty? Rose Bird, anyone???) Nope. Something like that ever happens to a kid of mine, under the current “justice” system, and I’m strongly tempted to deal with the perp privately. And a quick, painless death would NOT be on the agenda.
Confederate Yankee
Just a clarification: This was not random mob violence, but the families of victims (perhaps overactively) participating in a state-sanctioned, post-trial, and legal execution.
Quite frankly, if a mass-murderer is tried and found guilty, and is sentenced to death her in the United States, I see no legal or moral reason why members of the victim’s family shouldn’t be allowed to execute the sentence instead of a jailer if they so desire.
bg
I can: It validates vengeance.
bg
I can: It validates vengeance.
bg
I can: It validates vengeance.
Flagwaver
At the risk of sounding inflammatory, bq, what INHERENTLY is wrong with vengeance?
To quote Webster’s, vengeance is “punishment inflicted in retaliation for AN INJURY OR OFFENSE.” If you injure or offend me, why is it “wrong” for me to exact punishment for that injury or offense? You might argue that I should rely solely on societal systems and constructs to exact the punishment (lawsuit, criminal complaints, etc.), but, speaking as one who is intimately familiar with those tools, I can assure you that a lawsuit, “properly” prosecuted, can be far more tortuous than a simple beating.
So, educate me. If I am injured or offended, what is inherently wrong with me imposing punishment for that injury or offense??
CaseyL
What’s wrong with aping the monstrousness of the monster?
What’s wrong with society and the judicial system encouraging, and enabling, people to act out their most lurid revenge fantasies?
What’s wrong with bringing back the screaming mobs from the glory days of public disembowelments and executions? Those days of perfect justice as seen in France during the Terror, Spain during the Inquisition, Afghanistan during the Taliban… and, for that matter, the US during the 18th-19th Centuries?
Holy moly. If you need to have that one explained to you… I just don’t know what to say. Really.
David Nieporent
Eugene, IMHO, has it completely backwards here- the hallmark of civilization is the triumph of law and order and the accomplishment of justice without relying on capitulating to the base emotions of the mob.
This is a little misleading. Eugene is not talking about lynch mobs. He’s talking about punishment after trial.
There’s nothing inherently unlawandorderish about that.
Flagwaver
Well, CaseyL, try responding to my actual comment, and not YOUR lurid fantasies. I asked for an explanation of what was wrong, CONCEPTUALLY, with “revenge,” as defined by Webster. And no, you haven’t responded, and no, I don’t think any of your overblown rhetoric or inapposite analogies are in any respect responsive to the point of my comment. Take a Valium and try again . . . or not.
Kimmitt
Eugene is not talking about lynch mobs.
He’s really kinda talking about both.
I wonder if we’re seeing the “man behind the curtain” for modern conservatism here or not — that is, is this just one guy’s complete unhingedness, or is the conservative agenda fundamentally the rejection of Enlightenment ideals? To put it another way, is Prof. Volokh’s admiration of Iran’s barbaric theocracy an aberration or the truth finally shining through?
Ken Hahn
I am a hard right conservative and I’ll disagree with Professor Volokh. Unless you are a sociopath, committing torture on anyone, no matter how deserving, destroys a part of you. It is not that mass murderers or child molesters deserve humane treatment, it is that there is no way to inflict pain without becoming something less. It isn’t worth the price.
bg
The problem with vengeance is it’s not up to you whether to indulge in it. I’m not a religious man, but “Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord,” encapsulates my feelings nicely.
The current incarnation of the American death penalty is vengeance taken by the state. You have nothing to do with it.
Revenge itself is not the problem.
And while I think it’s perfectly human to desire vengeance, you’re not entitled to it under the law.
It boils down to this: Who has the authority to indulge in revenge? In America, none of us. Only the state has that power and I think thats the way it should be.
So to answer your question, I’d say revenge isn’t the problem. The problem lies in who gets to use it.
And sorry about the triple post earlier. I blame technology.
Mithras
Unless you are a sociopath, committing torture on anyone, no matter how deserving, destroys a part of you.
I gotta agree with Ken Hahn here. Eugene is just being overly honest here. The American way is to hire others do the torture and hide it, so we don’t sully our beautiful minds with such images. Prison walls don’t just keep the guilty in; they also block them from our sight. If that’s not good enough, there’s always extraordinary rendition. The crime of Abu Grahib was not the humiliations or the dogs or the beatings – it was the pictures. Damned sloppy of them.
JPS
There’s an interesting debate to be had over just how much vengeance can be allowed to creep into state-sanctioned punishment. I would point out that locking people away doesn’t serve a merely preventative or (Lord knows) rehabilitative purpose; it too is state-sanctioned revenge, though less final than the death penalty.
Kimmitt is part of that debate, though I think the “Is this what all conservatives really want” is a bit silly, given how many conservatives (our host among them) are appalled at Volokh’s position.
Mithras, on the other hand:
“The American way is to hire others do the torture and hide it, so we don’t sully our beautiful minds with such images. ”
My hat’s off to you; you’ve really won me over to your point of view.
Do you have an argument to make, or do you just enjoy venting your hostility to America, pissing off Americans who believe it’s better than its worst behavior, and dismaying those conservatives who’d like to believe that the left is better than its nastiest members, such as yourself?
Mithras
JPS-
You’re hypocrites. How’s that?
Flagwaver
I guess these responses are my just desserts for trying to discuss in a serious way a serious moral/ethical/philosophical queston on a blog comment thread. “That’ll learn ya, dumbass.”
For the record, I believe self-defense is not only moral, but failure to defend oneself, one’s family, etc., is actively IMMORAL. Taking that thought to its next logical step, punishment of those who injure me is a form of self-defense – both to discourage the perpetrator of the injury from attempting same again, and to discourage des autres who may be inspired by his actions.
So, if the question is, as it has been articulate above, “Who has the RIGHT to exact punishment?” I ask the following question: Is it EVER possible, in your political philosophy, for the state to have greater rights than the individuals who are members of the state? Does the individual obtain his rights by the charity of the state, or do the rights of the state derive “from the consent of the governed?” And, if the state derives its rights from me, how can I grant the state greater rights than I, myself, possess?
So, if we as a society have given the state our proxy to exact vengeance on our behalf, why does that necessarily mean that we have forgone that right ourselves? And, finally, if we have delegated that function to the state (as Mithras suggested, perhaps a little too accurately for the comfort of some hear, so we can have “plausible deniability” – If the actions of the state as your proxy are actions you would be ashamed of if you PERSONALLY took them, how can you NOT be ashamed of the state taking such actions in your name?), and the state fails or refuses to perform that function, and we do NOT “take the law into our own hands,” who is being immoral?
But I guess articulating a coherent philosophy for your bumper-sticker slogans about committing violence lessening you is too difficult a task for this venue. So I’ll shut up, and y’all go on being comfortable having YOUR government do things on your behalf that you consider unworthy of you. Pretty weird, IMHO.
JPS
Mithras:
“You’re hypocrites. How’s that?”
Nasty and dishonest. In character, from what I can tell.
Slartibartfast
If so, color me not a conservative. Make sure that you read hilzoy’s fine post that my comment completely failed to do justice to.
Slartibartfast
So, Flagwaver, punishment completely without rules is just fine with you? One can flay alive, castrate, disembowel, or impale?
No, thanks. I might consider scenarios in which friends or relatives might administer a bullet to the head, but being a victim to someone doesn’t grant you the right to torture. Torture is not self-defense.
Flagwaver
Jeebus, is everyone on this thread reading comprehension challenged??
Look back at my posts, please. Find the one where is indicated that “punishment completely without rules is just fine.”
What I asked (in response to the knee jerk and almost semi-hystericla reaction to Volokh’s comments, which responses basically took some variation on the form of “Oh, NO!! Revenge is BAD! Uncivilized! Immoral!!”) was “What is wrong with vengeance?” I asked some philosophical questions about the derivation of rights, and relative rights, of individuals and the state, and I expressed an opinion about the morality of self-defense, and the (to me) obvious link between self-defense and vengeance. And all I get in response is another crescendo of “Uncivilized! Immoral!”
Okay, DON’T think about any of the implications of the knee jerk positions you are taking. DON’T bother to explain to me why it is OK for the state to do something you seem to consider immoral for an individual to do. DON’T tell me what a moral individual is justified in doing in a context where the state has failed in or abdicated its proxy role as the dispenser of justice on behalf of the community. Continue to call me, and Professor Volokh, names. We’ll all learn a LOT from that discussion, won’t we??
bg
Flag, you and I have major differences, but I’ve taken you seriously. I’m going to assume that I am excepted from your last post. You’ve written another post higher up for which I owe you a response. I haven’t been able to yet (work intrudes), but I promise I will.
Ken Hahn
I want to be clear, I have no objection to the death penalty, imprisonment or other penalties. I even think victims or their relatives can participate in these penalties up to and including pulling the lever that springs the trap to hang a killer. I just contend that infliction of physical pain diminishes the torturer. Certainly yhe Iranian murderer deserves a quick death and endless shame but the flogging and stabbing were simply brutality.
What happened in Iran was a State sponsered lynching. That is destructive of the participants, including the State. Those States that coddle and release killers to kill again inflict pain on future victims and inflict fear on their populaces. In a way, the Europeans are worse than the Iranians because they have more victims and the victims have committed no crime.